The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-08-10
A CLASH OF AUTHORITY.

John 8. Williams Thinks He Is q Bigger
Man than tho Secretary of War.
WASHINGTON, Aug. 9.--Another issue has
been raised by the accounting officer of the
Treasury against the Quartermaster-generar
Office. The officers of the War Departmen Mt
have always claimed and insisted th At the orders
of the President and the Secretary Of War are
to be obeyed, nolens volens, and are not to be
questioned in any quarter Second Comptroller
Butler and Third Auditor Williams have. how
ever, taken a contrary view. The accounts of
Colonel Batckeider, late depot guar artermaster in
Washington, now in course of settlement by
the accounting officers. Among the vouchers is
one for $500, for two horses for the use of the
Secretary of War; 1t is accompanied by letter
addressed to Colonel Batchelder in his official
capacity, dated Washington, Feb. &c. 1856.
and bears the signature of John Tweedale, chief
clerk of the War Department. 1t is as follows:
II have the honor to inform you that the
team of horses used by ex-Secretary Lincoln
unserviceable and no longer useful for the pur-
poses of the department. The Secretary di-
rects that they be turned over to you for the
customary disposition, and that pair of good,
sound borses be purchased for the use Of this
Office He prefers bay horses, bur does not de-
sire the purchase of an expensive pair"
This voucher was disallowed by the Third
Auditor and Second Comptroller Butler, on the
ground that money appropriated by Congress
for army transportation cannot be used legally
in purchasing horses for the Secretary of War,
the necessary expenses OF the War Department
proper being provided for in the legislative ap-
preparation. To this Col. Batchelder replied
that the order of the Secretary of War was the
supreme law to him. and conclusive upon the
accounting officers of the Treasury In support
of his proposition he refers to two decisions of
the Supreme Court Third Auditor Williams
in letter to the Second Comptroller in regard
to this case, says:
"The theory that an order from superior
or even army regulation, could warrant a
dlsbursing Office in making disbursement of
public funds in direct contravention of q statue,
finds no countenance in any judicial decision
in any opinion by any recognized authority.
interpreting the language of the courts and thus
confounding two entirely distinct propositions
Many things may be lawful. though
not enjoined or expressly authorized in the
statutes, but nothing be lawful which
the statutes expressly prohibit Congress may
commit to the head of a department a wide dis.
cretion in the of public funds, and courts
have repeatedly held that i'll the exercise of that
discretion he is not subject to review by the
courts; but court has ever said that he is at
him by the statute. or to public funds for
any purpose different from that prescribed by
law. But when statute is specific in respect
to the extent of the funds and the use to be made
OF it, no discretion is given to any authority
to do anything more than to carry out the plain
requirement of the law, and in that no dis
bursing officer shield himself by pleading
the order of a superior. He is bound to recog-
nize that a statute has full force though it con-
travene an order or regulation: while the order
regulation, If conflicting with the statute, is
utterly destitute Of force. If officer elects
to follow order though knowing that he
thereby violates the law he must be prepared
to accept the legal consequence.